massey

I'm toying with concepts like "achievements" which some games have now, they give no actual rewards other than recognition for having done something noteworthy or surprising.  Maybe turn them into Hero Points or something, so the player gets a benefit without it having to be actual power in the character.
 
Personally I prefer to give out things such as contacts, a point in a language the character is exposed to a lot, favors, etc over experience because then its about the character gaining things they would want rather than points to be more powerful so they face more powerful foes.

This is a personal beef with video games but you never really actually get more powerful: the world changes to match you so the fights are just as hard they just have bigger numbers...

I'll probably see it before I see Infinity War Part 2, if only so I'll know what to expect out of her when she makes her appearance.
 
I'm not really interested in the character, and nothing in the trailer has really grabbed me.  I don't particularly care about any controversy that Brie Larson has created.  I just don't like the character that much, and I'm not thrilled with the film coming out so close to IW#2.  The only thing I'm actually worried about is that Marvel might have her come in and pull a Superman on Thanos.  I don't want them to introduce this brand new hero, who we don't really know or care about, and then she's suddenly the star of the show.  We've spent 10 years getting to know the original Avengers cast, and I want to see them stop the bad guy.
 
It's not that she's a woman.  I'd feel the same way if they had a Sentry movie.  I'd be like "oh this is gonna suck".  Now I have a lot of faith in Marvel, but what (very little) I saw of Brie Larson's comments about the film, she was describing it as exactly what I don't want to see.  "I am woman, see me ruin franchise."  But I think one of the people who were in GOTG said similar things ("the Guardians could kick the Hulk's ass" somebody said), and that didn't turn out to be true.  So I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
 
I do think Marvel is trying to cash in on the success of Wonder Woman, and also trying to promote someone whose name is the same as the company.  That's not really a bad thing, companies exist to make money.  But I'm just not excited about it.  At all.

Part of the problem is that the majority of Champions games are not solo hero adventures, while the majority of comic books are.
 
The Joker is less powerful than Batman.  As long as the Joker sticks to his areas of strength, he can be a reasonable opponent for the Bat.  He avoids direct combat unless he has some kind of advantage to even the scales, so he'll always have a secret weapon, or a trap, or some hostages or something to distract Batman.  The conflict usually ends when Batman gets past all the obstacles and is able to confront Joker directly.  When it gets to "punching in the face" time, Batman wins.
 
However, Joker doesn't really scale well when you've got the other members of the Justice League there.  Or other heroes at all, really.  The more heroes involved, the higher the likelihood that somebody is going to engage him in combat before he's ready.  Or avoid his obstacles.  Imagine if Batman was teamed up with Nightcrawler of the X-Men.  Bamf!  Punch!  Fight over.

Tangential to YOUR point I do wonder if in fact this isn't the issue.
 
Class\level progressions are so darned standardized in the gaming mindset. Power progression, enemy progression, spell progress, MORE AND BETTER MAGICAL ITEMS, all of that.
Most other games (CoC, WW, SR GURPS) revolve around pre-provided lists of advancement so that even though you aren't improving everything all over all the time (like the archetypal D&D standard) you are only improving discreet and pre-defined aspects of existing rules. 
So where you are still "spending XP" like you do in Hero the things you spend it on are....kinda prebalanced and limited and the XP progressions themselves usually limit things.
 
In Hero I can buy +1 OCV ("to-hit") for 2pts. And then another for 2pts. And then still another for 2pts.
 
In WW or SR (the older editions which I'm familiar with) the XP costs scale as the thing being improved scales. So my guy with the +3 OCV (equivalent) would pay 4pts for his +4, then 5pts for his +5, and so on and I don't know why I'm explaining this really, we're all gamers here and I'm sure the point I'm making is evident already, but...because of that increasing cost (and often a top level cap as well) XP spend balancing isn't quite the chore it can become in Hero. 
 
In Vampire (for example) I can boost my weak skills and stats for cheap, but if I want to continue to pump my already top-line combat stuff I'll reach diminishing returns and start to incur some serious opportunity costs. Should I leave my weak spots unprotected so I can continue to pump my main ability for marginal increases in utility? Or should I shore up weak spots because my XP dollar goes farther?
 
Hero doesn't (quite) have that same dilemma.
 
But, wait, then, the other thing: The ideas of what progression means are all built in to those rules\settings.
 
Hero doesn't have that..."problem".
 
Like most stuff in Hero the GM\players get to do all that work and I think there's a lot of emphasis (for reasonable reasons) on initial setup, initial concept, and, of course, CHARACTER CREATION, and then also, how you want to play the game (Wounding? Impairing? Hit Locs?) and so on.
 
Which is fine. And good. And very Hero-ey.
 
But it kinda leaves that whole entire "What happens after chargen\session1" stuff...well...also up to the GM\players also to decide and that's something that...I mean, really...do most games ever touch on this? 
 
Like D&D..you fight things, you get stuff, you level up, WIN!!! That's the game!!!!
White Wolf stuff is the same, you make your tragic vampire, you do your tragic vampire stuff, you get XP!
 
There's no real discussion in most games about how the progression works out, or is supposed to work out, or, generally, any end-state at all (hitting 20th level in D&D maybe) and since the "how should stuff progress?" question is handled by the rules, in an indirect way (the answer to the question: How does it progress? Being: Well instead let me just tell you what\how you can spend XP on....) then...nobody ever has to address it.
 
Hero often seems oriented around the idea that, "You can make ANYthing!", and spends all it's time on making the thing, rather than what happens after ("Whatever you want, maaaan!"). 
 
 
 

If I were going to run a fantasy hero game, I'd try and establish some clear character benchmarks for the world, and then make sure I didn't exceed them.  Characters buy up combat skill levels because it makes them more effective.  They don't buy +20 OCV just for the hell of it -- there's no benefit once they're hitting most targets on a 14 or less.  If random orcs are showing up with 8 levels in all combat, the players will respond by buying more.  But let's say that enemies are going to top out at around a 7 OCV/DCV.  Players probably won't go to much more than a 10 total, regardless of any hard limits imposed.  And if you do impose a hard limit, they probably won't feel restricted since they're still able to hit effectively.
 
Aragorn is at the top end of the OCV/DCV paradigm in LOTR.  It doesn't matter what that exact level is, just that Aragorn is there.  Nobody is going to show up and best him in hand to hand skill.  Likewise you won't have players dumping points into tons of damage if you don't have ogres or trolls with 30 Body that you have to slowly hack your way through all the time.
 
Once they're satisfied with their level of combat ability, and they aren't facing the constant "monsters get tougher and hit harder" progression, then they'll be free to expand their characters in other directions.
 
I toyed around with the idea of having wizards who only know like one spell.  What about a necromancer who is a powerful fighter, has an array of henchmen and a gloomy castle, has a magic scepter that lets him bind spirits (mind control vs ghosts), and knows the ancient ritual "Summon Undead Army" (summons 10,000 skeletons at 75 points each, but can only be cast under a full moon with rare components).  In some ways he's more powerful than any D&D wizard, but he's also far more limited.  It's something you wouldn't see in other fantasy games.
 
If you take off the D&D shackles, Hero offers a whole lot of possibilities.

I'd probably be a centaur. Lord knows I've been called a horse's arse often enough.

If I were going to run a fantasy hero game, I'd try and establish some clear character benchmarks for the world, and then make sure I didn't exceed them.  Characters buy up combat skill levels because it makes them more effective.  They don't buy +20 OCV just for the hell of it -- there's no benefit once they're hitting most targets on a 14 or less.  If random orcs are showing up with 8 levels in all combat, the players will respond by buying more.  But let's say that enemies are going to top out at around a 7 OCV/DCV.  Players probably won't go to much more than a 10 total, regardless of any hard limits imposed.  And if you do impose a hard limit, they probably won't feel restricted since they're still able to hit effectively.
 
Aragorn is at the top end of the OCV/DCV paradigm in LOTR.  It doesn't matter what that exact level is, just that Aragorn is there.  Nobody is going to show up and best him in hand to hand skill.  Likewise you won't have players dumping points into tons of damage if you don't have ogres or trolls with 30 Body that you have to slowly hack your way through all the time.
 
Once they're satisfied with their level of combat ability, and they aren't facing the constant "monsters get tougher and hit harder" progression, then they'll be free to expand their characters in other directions.
 
I toyed around with the idea of having wizards who only know like one spell.  What about a necromancer who is a powerful fighter, has an array of henchmen and a gloomy castle, has a magic scepter that lets him bind spirits (mind control vs ghosts), and knows the ancient ritual "Summon Undead Army" (summons 10,000 skeletons at 75 points each, but can only be cast under a full moon with rare components).  In some ways he's more powerful than any D&D wizard, but he's also far more limited.  It's something you wouldn't see in other fantasy games.
 
If you take off the D&D shackles, Hero offers a whole lot of possibilities.

You should stay away from the deaf community

Good chart with the 3D6 distribution.  I need to save that.
 
My point with regards to mathematical consistency is not that the bell curve gives it.  I know it doesn't.  It's that you only get the illusion of consistency by going to a set minus.  You can make the 11-, 12-, 13- look consistent, but the actual percentage odds of success will still vary wildly.  You can make one set of numbers look nice and even, but the others aren't going to match it.
 

 
 
Professor Executioner has a 12 OCV.  He targets Captain Amazo (normally DCV 8).  He needs a 15- to hit, meaning he should expect to succeed (looks at chart) 95.4% of the time.  But Captain Amazo is Stunned from the last time Professor Executioner shot him, so his DCV is halved and is only a 4.  The Professor need only avoid rolling an 18 to hit him.  His chance of success rises to a mighty 99.5%, but only a 4.1% increase.  What if we make it a set -3 DCV while Stunned, instead of 1/2?  Same exact odds, still a 99.5% chance of success.
 
Compare this to Viper Agent #3, who opens fire on Captain Amazo.  #3 has an OCV of 6, and he's shooting at a DCV of 8.  He needs a 9-,  for a 37.5% chance of success.  If Captain Amazo's DCV is halved, then he needs a 13-.  His odds go up to 83.8%, an enormous 46.3% swing.  That's over 10 times the benefit that Professor Executioner got.  If we make it a flat -3 penalty, it's still a 12-, or 74.1% chance of success.  Still a 36.6% improvement.
 
The point is, the average odds of success are going to vary wildly.  The odds of hitting aren't consistent, even when we're talking about one character with a set DCV.

Good chart with the 3D6 distribution.  I need to save that.
 
My point with regards to mathematical consistency is not that the bell curve gives it.  I know it doesn't.  It's that you only get the illusion of consistency by going to a set minus.  You can make the 11-, 12-, 13- look consistent, but the actual percentage odds of success will still vary wildly.  You can make one set of numbers look nice and even, but the others aren't going to match it.
 

 
 
Professor Executioner has a 12 OCV.  He targets Captain Amazo (normally DCV 8).  He needs a 15- to hit, meaning he should expect to succeed (looks at chart) 95.4% of the time.  But Captain Amazo is Stunned from the last time Professor Executioner shot him, so his DCV is halved and is only a 4.  The Professor need only avoid rolling an 18 to hit him.  His chance of success rises to a mighty 99.5%, but only a 4.1% increase.  What if we make it a set -3 DCV while Stunned, instead of 1/2?  Same exact odds, still a 99.5% chance of success.
 
Compare this to Viper Agent #3, who opens fire on Captain Amazo.  #3 has an OCV of 6, and he's shooting at a DCV of 8.  He needs a 9-,  for a 37.5% chance of success.  If Captain Amazo's DCV is halved, then he needs a 13-.  His odds go up to 83.8%, an enormous 46.3% swing.  That's over 10 times the benefit that Professor Executioner got.  If we make it a flat -3 penalty, it's still a 12-, or 74.1% chance of success.  Still a 36.6% improvement.
 
The point is, the average odds of success are going to vary wildly.  The odds of hitting aren't consistent, even when we're talking about one character with a set DCV.

Good chart with the 3D6 distribution.  I need to save that.
 
My point with regards to mathematical consistency is not that the bell curve gives it.  I know it doesn't.  It's that you only get the illusion of consistency by going to a set minus.  You can make the 11-, 12-, 13- look consistent, but the actual percentage odds of success will still vary wildly.  You can make one set of numbers look nice and even, but the others aren't going to match it.
 

 
 
Professor Executioner has a 12 OCV.  He targets Captain Amazo (normally DCV 8).  He needs a 15- to hit, meaning he should expect to succeed (looks at chart) 95.4% of the time.  But Captain Amazo is Stunned from the last time Professor Executioner shot him, so his DCV is halved and is only a 4.  The Professor need only avoid rolling an 18 to hit him.  His chance of success rises to a mighty 99.5%, but only a 4.1% increase.  What if we make it a set -3 DCV while Stunned, instead of 1/2?  Same exact odds, still a 99.5% chance of success.
 
Compare this to Viper Agent #3, who opens fire on Captain Amazo.  #3 has an OCV of 6, and he's shooting at a DCV of 8.  He needs a 9-,  for a 37.5% chance of success.  If Captain Amazo's DCV is halved, then he needs a 13-.  His odds go up to 83.8%, an enormous 46.3% swing.  That's over 10 times the benefit that Professor Executioner got.  If we make it a flat -3 penalty, it's still a 12-, or 74.1% chance of success.  Still a 36.6% improvement.
 
The point is, the average odds of success are going to vary wildly.  The odds of hitting aren't consistent, even when we're talking about one character with a set DCV.

Anything can be made an issue by a GM contriving to force that issue. In actual practice however, is a typical OAF literally negated 50% of the time? And if so, is it prorated? Could a character, say, space bank their foci's unavailability ala a timeshare? If an OAF is unavailable for 4 Phases during a fight with a bunch of disposable mooks, is that equivalent to it being unavailable for 4 Phases during a fight against the character's archnemisis or 4 Phases during a fight against the big bad at the end of a story arc?
 
If a session ends up being 50% roleplaying and 50% combat, does the 50% of the time an OAF gun toting character was "on screen" during the roleplaying section of the session count towards the 50% of the time the OAF gun will be unavailable? Or does that count as 0% since the OAF wasn't being used and thus to make up this "50% unavailable" quota it ends up being unavailable for the remainder of the session? Or does only combat time count, such that it's available for 50% of the combat time and thus is really 25% unavailable when considered against the total session time?  
 
Seems pretty silly to me. Also it is an interpretation not directly supported by the rules. The RAW does not say "OAF will be unavailable half the time". The RAW in 6e mentions in passing "For example, if you take Focus for a power, you’re telling the GM, “I occasionally want to lose the use of this power because it’s been taken away from me or been broken.” and "Some Limitations (especially Focus) are very effective for the character unless the GM brings the Limitation into play once in a while, so it’s the GM’s  responsibility to make sure the Limitation affects the game, at least occasionally". I don't recall earlier editions indicating an OAF should be unavailable 50% of the time either. 

I sometimes compare to Activation.  An 11- activation works 62.5% of the time and halves the cost.  But I don't know which time it will fail to work.  That seems a greater limitation than knowing when it will not work, which permits me to take a different action, or select a different target.
 
That is different from "power is unavailable half of the time", though.  That OAF can be Disarmed - do I choose my targets appropriately, avoid engaging in melee, etc.?  I cannot use it if Grabbed or Entangled, which can happen at any time.  It's tough to slip into a Royal Ball carrying my OAF.  I'd say it can easily be made an issue in 50% of scenarios, even if it does not deprive the character of the ability 50% of the time. 
 
A power that "only affects men" will seldom be used on an invalid target, but it is still limited.
 
I agree that the severity of the limitation also needs to be considered. 
 
For the KA - All or Nothing, it clearly cannot be used to disable a foe ("I will target his legs so he cannot flee; after we capture him, we can question him"), makes a poor choice for defending against a Mind Controlled victim, cannot whittle away at a big Entangle, Automaton or Barrier, etc.  That -2 effectively includes "does no STUN" as the target is either dead or unimpeded.  Does it matter whether it does Knockback if the target is now a corpse?

If I were going to run a fantasy hero game, I'd try and establish some clear character benchmarks for the world, and then make sure I didn't exceed them.  Characters buy up combat skill levels because it makes them more effective.  They don't buy +20 OCV just for the hell of it -- there's no benefit once they're hitting most targets on a 14 or less.  If random orcs are showing up with 8 levels in all combat, the players will respond by buying more.  But let's say that enemies are going to top out at around a 7 OCV/DCV.  Players probably won't go to much more than a 10 total, regardless of any hard limits imposed.  And if you do impose a hard limit, they probably won't feel restricted since they're still able to hit effectively.
 
Aragorn is at the top end of the OCV/DCV paradigm in LOTR.  It doesn't matter what that exact level is, just that Aragorn is there.  Nobody is going to show up and best him in hand to hand skill.  Likewise you won't have players dumping points into tons of damage if you don't have ogres or trolls with 30 Body that you have to slowly hack your way through all the time.
 
Once they're satisfied with their level of combat ability, and they aren't facing the constant "monsters get tougher and hit harder" progression, then they'll be free to expand their characters in other directions.
 
I toyed around with the idea of having wizards who only know like one spell.  What about a necromancer who is a powerful fighter, has an array of henchmen and a gloomy castle, has a magic scepter that lets him bind spirits (mind control vs ghosts), and knows the ancient ritual "Summon Undead Army" (summons 10,000 skeletons at 75 points each, but can only be cast under a full moon with rare components).  In some ways he's more powerful than any D&D wizard, but he's also far more limited.  It's something you wouldn't see in other fantasy games.
 
If you take off the D&D shackles, Hero offers a whole lot of possibilities.

Why do you say "of course it does"? It's a GM's prerogative to set Lim values to whatever they want, but I'm curious where are you getting the idea that a -1 limitation should literally be unavailable 50% of the time from?
 
 
That's your prerogative, of course. I wonder though whether your interpretation of certain things is based upon something concrete in the RAW / RAI or perhaps stems from a more personal perspective.
 
If I were to show up for a HS game and the GM told me that they interpreted limitation values to a direct and literal % of not being effective, such that a -1/4 limitation would literally negate a power 20% of the time, a -1/2 33% of the time, a -3/4 43% of the time, -1 50% of the time, and so on and that they would somehow keep track of this and contrive the emerging story to enforce it, I would have both questions and concerns. 
 
For instance I would worry that they did not understand that some limitations have a quantified impact intrinsically and automatically such as Concentration or Increased END or Charges, vs looser limitations which are circumstantially binary and thus have no impact most of the time but massive impact when they do apply such as "does not work in a vacuum" on a fire based superhero, usually pegged at -1/4 for a typical atmosphere based campaign setting...surely a character taking that limitation would not somehow find themselves in space or a vacuum chamber literally 20% or 1/5th of their screen time? I would worry that this GM did not realize that severity of impact should be considered, not merely frequency of occurrence. I would also worry that this GM would turn out to be strongly gamist rather than simulationist or narrativist, asserting unnecessarily rigid interpretations of rules over cinematic and genre simulation and over allowing what makes sense in the context of the emerging story as players interact with the setting and the plot. 

It's not mathematically consistent at all, because Hero uses a bell curve.  Applying a flat penalty (-1, -2, -5, or whatever) will affect characters far differently, based upon the number needed to hit them in the first place.  Characters who have extremely high or extremely low DCVs will be affected less than characters with average DCVs.
 
So does 1/2 DCV of course, but I don't think you're gaining any kind of mathematical purity by changing to a flat penalty.

I think you've got to keep in mind that by the time your characters have that many combat levels, they're the D&D equivalent of probably 20th level.  They should be able to tear through all the monsters in the book.
 
There are a few ways to control their character progression, depending on who you ask.
 
--Cap the amount of combat skill levels (or other abilities) that the characters can have.  Make them spend their points on something else.  If the best swordsman in the world has +10 levels with his sword, then no, the player can't have +12.  Best he can ever get is +10, and maybe he needs GM permission to go past +6.  Like he can't spend his first 30 XP to go to +10, he's got to bulk out his other stats, and buy KS: Swordsmanship School or something (possibly roleplay out some exceptional training) before he can do that.
 
--Encourage people to branch out beyond their D&D character classes.  Why be a simple fighter when you can be a sword-mage?  Maybe the fighter has an intelligent animal companion (like a talking horse or something).  Or perhaps he's a prince, but he didn't know it before.  All these are great point sinks for characters.  You can steer them towards things that cost a lot of points, and are cool for the character, but don't throw the OCV/DCV system out of whack.
 
--Give some XP as predefined bonuses.  They complete an adventure where they help the Elf King, instead of getting +15 XP for that story arc, maybe they get 3 XP, plus Contact: Elf King on an 11-, plus they learn an elven protection spell, and they get a magic charm.  A lot of XP in fantasy games could take the form of magic items they find.  This steers the character advancement in a way that you choose.

6th edition problems...

I am in the "drop it to zero if you want" camp.  I will say that I totally understand those folks who disagree with doing this, whatever the reasons are. 
 
What I would like some enlightenment on (because I really don't understand it) is the opinion voiced above that the character should somehow be made to suffer for this.   How is a player selling off say 6 points of OMCV (so he now has a 1) more of a hindrance than if everyone but him bought another two levels and he stayed at 3?
 
Yes; it's much harder for him to hit with a mental power (which he likely doesn't have anyway), but is that not also true if he stayed at 3 while everyone else went to 5?
 
I suppose I am having a difficult time rationalizing that we don't add penalties to characters who sell off some STR, or CON, or STUN, or DEX or anything else, because there are default problems associated with these reductions. However, there are default problems with reducing OMCV as well.   The fact that they may never come up for a given character in a given campaign doesn't make it cheesy, at least not anymore that the guy with the strength 5 is cheesy because he didn't buy enough STR to lift a bus.  And just like reducing OMCV (or anything else, for that matter), the player doesn't expect to be put in a situation where he would _have_ to lift a bus, either.  Further, I expect that few GMs would alter the campaign in such a way as to make this character regret not being able to lift a bus.  That being the case, why does reducing OMCV somehow "require" such a penalty? 
 
I'm with a lot of other folks who really think that it should have defaulted a zero anyway.  Though I confess to being intrigued by Shrike's idea of mental combat maneuvers...... 
 
How do we determine STR for mental attacks?  EGO seems traditional.  Maybe we need a special set of Mental Damage characteristics, too: mental STUN, mental BODY..... 
 
 
Great.  Now I'm thinking again.  I've got things to do besides think, you know.... 
 
 
 
 
Duke

Honestly, if I used invisibility in a Heroic setting and the GM told me that my armor, weapons, backpack, rope, etc. all did NOT turn invisible because they are built as Obvious Foci I would walk off the table and find a new GM.
 
That interpretation of the rules does nothing to enhance the fun of the players.
 
We could continue on with the torture of the rules:
* Your clothing doesn't disappear because it is OIF life support vs. 1 temperature level of cold.
* Your shoes don't disappear because they are OIF +1 Running / 1rPD/1rED area 18 only.
etc.
 
Horrible.
 
 

If the character is wearing or wielding an Obvious focus in a darkness field, does the focus shine through? 
 
Does a Flashed character still perceive those Obvious foci?
 
Obviously not.
 
I think sense-affecting powers override the obviousness of the focus.  If we have Captain Cheesy trying to get around his foci limitations because he has Invisibility, we can simply reduce the value of his limitation as his LimburgerObvious is clearly less limiting.

I'd personally rule that if you're invisible the Obvious Foci is only going to be obvious to people that can still see you.  So while Bob and Sue can't tell where your power comes from Red-Horned Blindsense Man can and he promptly performs a ranged disarm with his improbably little throwy club things.
 
Punishing the player by having their Foci visibly floating along while they are invisible effectively makes their invisibility not a thing.
 
 

Let's not go there. The last time I had to buy off a naked group was a really bad week for me.

Eventually you just run out of things to spend points on.  A 5000 point cosmic VPP, every skill at 25-, 500 PD and ED resistant triple hardened with 75% Damage Reduction...
 
You just end up flipping through the book trying to justify things.

I would just simulate it with CSL or plain old OCV, DCV and 0 END STR.
 
For me "Marital Arts the Rules construct" is first and foremost a way to save points. Not spending so much on CV and STR (and possibly END and REC).
I find it entierly acceptable to give a Constrictor Snake a 'Martial Art' that gives bonuses to the Grab, Choke and Crush maneuvers to simulate it being good at those.
 
There is a few unique things that currently only martial arts can do. But HSMA 6E has some ideas how to turn those things into normal Optional combat maneuvers.